• 'Gitmo is killing me': Inmate describes horror of being force-fed by tube
    147 replies, posted
[QUOTE=scout1;40295340] Go speak to a lawyer about your rights. Ask him if force feeding is illegal. If he tells you it isn't, is he defending it?[/QUOTE] No, he would be answering a question with a fact. Here you were the one who brought it up without having it mentioned before, meaning that you saw it fit to add that as an argument in favor of force feeding.
you can't argue with stupid.
[QUOTE=scout1;40295340]"prison" "citizen" "accused" "adviser on detainee issues" "[...] in protest of their open-ended confinement and what the men consider intrusive searches of their Korans for contraband, according to prisoners’ lawyers."[/QUOTE] what are you trying to prove with those quotes? [QUOTE=scout1;40295340]And again we'll assume I am wrong and completely missed the point. Apparently so did the first replier, laserguided who argued its legality and quickly stepped out, and killuah who tried to cite clear examples. For a topic focused on ethics, it sure is off the mark a lot.[/QUOTE] yeah, i guess the first reply did go off a bit there. but if you could step back for a moment you'll see that when you're not posting (and sometimes even when you are) the topic is largely focused on morality, and that the only time legality is brought up is in replies to your posts [QUOTE=scout1;40295340]Go speak to a lawyer about your rights. Ask him if force feeding is illegal. If he tells you it isn't, is he defending it?[/QUOTE] no but if he continually brought it up while I tried to talk about its ethical bits and then refused to state his own stance on it? I'd be a bit annoyed
[QUOTE=Fhux;40295444]No, he would be answering a question with a fact. Here you were the one who brought it up without having it mentioned before, meaning that you saw it fit to add that as an argument in favor of force feeding.[/QUOTE] So you're saying it wasn't mentioned before. Please see the previous 2 pages. I've explained, in painstaking detail, why I replied about it. [editline]15th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=laserguided;40295469]you can't argue with stupid.[/QUOTE] That's what you've said every time you can't win your arguments. Interesting.
[QUOTE=scout1;40293001]Force feeding isn't illegal[/QUOTE] Maybe not, but it's still fucking horrible.
[QUOTE=Juniez;40295471]what are you trying to prove with those quotes?[/QUOTE] The legality of the situation is certainly on topic and in discussion, being the reason for the protest. [QUOTE=Juniez;40295471] yeah, i guess the first reply did go off a bit there. but if you could step back for a moment you'll see that when you're not posting (and sometimes even when you are) the topic is largely focused on morality, and that the only time legality is brought up is in replies to your posts[/QUOTE] Okay again we'll assume I'm wrong. I don't see discussing the legality of gitmo or its actions in a gitmo thread to be such a horrible thing. You're free to not post about it, and let the people who want to discuss it discuss it. Nobody cares? My post would be one post on the first page. Evidently, people care.
[QUOTE=scout1;40295528]The legality of the situation is certainly on topic and in discussion, being the reason for the protest.[/QUOTE] whether it's legal or not isn't on the topic, but rather what it [I]should[/I] be - to which you have repeatedly stated that you have no interest in discussing [QUOTE=scout1;40295528]Okay again we'll assume I'm wrong. I don't see discussing the legality of gitmo or its actions in a gitmo thread to be such a horrible thing. You're free to not post about it, and let the people who want to discuss it discuss it. Nobody cares? My post would be one post on the first page. Evidently, people care.[/QUOTE] well it's not such a hot topic to discuss because there's nothing to discuss - it's a fact that can be directly proved "man I can't believe how legal that is" "yeah man it's very not-illegal" "gosh here let me present some documents that directly states its legality" "ok"
hey scout perhaps legality is directly tied to ethics, and because you're apparently incapable of contributing on ethics then all you have left to add is rephrasing "it's not illegal" and arguing who did this and who should be talking about that ethics are the grounds for legality in human rights issues so if you refuse to say anything on ethics then you're literally not saying anything at all.
[QUOTE=Juniez;40295563]whether it's legal or not isn't on the topic, but rather what it [I]should[/I] be - to which you have repeatedly stated that you have no interest in discussing [/QUOTE] So go complain to whoever starts a slightly different vein of discussion in every thread... even [B]assuming[/B] that the only point ever of this thread is the ethics of gitmo, people are still discussing the legality after I posted. [QUOTE=Juniez;40295563] well it's not such a hot topic to discuss because there's nothing to discuss - it's a fact that can be directly proved "man I can't believe how legal that is" "yeah man it's very not-illegal" "gosh"[/QUOTE] Have you ignored the actual okay posts that have been made citing the US constitution and assault? Law is a complex matter and surely not something that can be directly proved, especially in circumstances such as this where (possible) civilians are being held by a military court whilst being defined outside the normal bounds of the law to which a great many people protest and disagree! So don't tell me the law is so clear cut, okay? [editline]15th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DOG-GY;40295599]hey scout perhaps legality is directly tied to ethics, and because you're apparently incapable of contributing on ethics then all you have left to add is rephrasing "it's not illegal" and arguing who did this and who should be talking about that ethics are the grounds for legality in human rights issues so if you refuse to say anything on ethics then you're literally not saying anything at all.[/QUOTE] I see you've also taken ignoring posts to an extreme. [QUOTE=scout1;40294255] [B]Better.[/B] But case law says no. [url]http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2119936130691213027&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr[/url] [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/beyond-guantanamo-torture_b_360082.html[/url] [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8094727.stm[/url] Last one is a fed case, so you can see how precedence has been set.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=scout1;40295614] Have you ignored the actual okay posts that have been made citing the US constitution and assault? Law is a complex matter and surely not something that can be directly proved, especially in circumstances such as this where (possible) civilians are being held by a military court whilst being defined outside the normal bounds of the law to which a great many people protest and disagree! So don't tell me the law is so clear cut, okay?[/QUOTE] those still deal with whether it [I]should [/I]be legal or not - it just takes a different approach other then ethics - that's totally fine. the only silly thing to do is to repeatedly state 'it's not illegal' and expect a decent discussion to come from that. everyone knows it's legal already guy
[QUOTE=Juniez;40295632]those still deal with whether it [I]should [/I]be legal or not - it just takes a different approach other then ethics - that's totally fine.[/QUOTE] I don't understand what you're saying?
[QUOTE=scout1;40295476]So you're saying it wasn't mentioned before. Please see the previous 2 pages. I've explained, in painstaking detail, why I replied about it.[/QUOTE] Looking at it, it seems to have gone like this: [quote=Someone]Boy, there are a lot of illegal thing going on in Gitmo, I wish they would just shut it down[/quote] [quote=You]Well, force feeding isn't illegal.[/quote] I am just saying, no one provoked that response beforehand. I just want you to realize that you are in fact defending torture, and made that decision yourself.
[QUOTE=scout1;40295644]I don't understand what you're saying?[/QUOTE] it's legal now -> it shouldn't be legal because it's in a direct contradiction with the constitution, and the constitution stomps over the law (ok) it's legal now -> it shouldn't be legal because law is often founded upon ethics and that sure isn't ethical (ok) it's legal now -> it's legal now -> it's legal now (not ok)
[QUOTE=Fhux;40295677] I am just saying, no one provoked that response beforehand. I just want you to realize that you are in fact defending torture, and made that decision yourself.[/QUOTE] I will say it once again since you didn't take my advice to read the last 2 pages. The post I replied to was insinuating [I]the topic included[/I] as one of those illegal things. Now assuming that's wrong (for the third time I've assumed this today), the article itself is about protests about the legality of the prison and its actions. [editline]15th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Juniez;40295679]it's legal now -> it shouldn't be legal because it's in a direct contradiction with the constitution, and the constitution stomps over the law (ok) it's legal now -> it shouldn't be legal because law is often founded upon ethics and that sure isn't ethical (ok) it's legal now -> it's legal now -> it's legal now (not ok)[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure we were doing the first one?
[QUOTE=scout1;40295614]I see you've also taken ignoring posts to an extreme.[/QUOTE] wow almost speechless here, congrats let me break it down for you. it doesnt matter what you cite about what is the case. my post is about how human rights and the ethical issues that come with the territory are what drive the laws that deal with them. this has been true of every society ever. what is actually in practice is not relevant. it being legal only reinforces that ethics obviously weren't in the minds of those who set the law, which makes the law ethically wrong. but we don't know what you think about this simple concept because you're being stubborn so uh good job on completely not understanding the most idiot proof post i thought i could make
[QUOTE=scout1;40295703]I will say it once again since you didn't take my advice to read the last 2 pages. The post I replied to was insinuating [I]the topic included[/I] as one of those illegal things. Now assuming that's wrong (for the third time I've assumed this today), the article itself is about protests about the legality of the prison and its actions. [editline]15th April 2013[/editline] I'm pretty sure we were doing the first one?[/QUOTE] well we are now, but back then we weren't. you should have made the first argument back at page 1 instead of waiting for Ekalektik to do it for you
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;40295744]wow almost speechless here, congrats let me break it down for you. it doesnt matter what you cite about what is the case. my post is about how human rights and the ethical issues that come with the territory are what drive the laws that deal with them. this has been true of every society ever. what is actually in practice is not relevant. it being legal only reinforces that ethics obviously weren't in the minds of those who set the law, which makes the law ethically wrong. but we don't know what you think about this simple concept because you're being stubborn so uh good job on completely not understanding the most idiot proof post i thought i could make[/QUOTE] Oh so you're arguing ethics. You can stop responding to my posts then, thanks. I thought I made it idiot-proof clear that I wasn't, but you managed to screw that one up too, eh? Ain't that just impolite... [editline]15th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Juniez;40295750]well we are now, but back then we weren't. you should have made the first argument back @ page 1[/QUOTE] That there is no basis for its illegality? I did. Perhaps I did not explain the concept fully, but I was then responded to by killuah trying to cite an international organization as a US law-making body. Which I was able to disprove immediately.
[QUOTE=scout1;40294059]Yeah, you mean to say that I have advanced some position on how I feel about gitmo force feeding inmates. I haven't. [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1261478&p=40293001&viewfull=1#post40293001]I said there wasn't a law[/url], and[url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1261478&p=40293523&viewfull=1#post40293523] you tried to say there was.[/url] [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1261478&p=40293561&viewfull=1#post40293561]Twice.[/url] [B]SO WHERE IS THE LAW?[/B][/QUOTE] [IMG]http://reason.com/assets/mc/_external/2012_07/i-am-the-law-now-let-me-eat-yo.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=scout1;40295762]Oh so you're arguing ethics. You can stop responding to my posts then, thanks. I thought I made it idiot-proof clear that I wasn't, but you managed to screw that one up too, eh? Ain't that just impolite...[/QUOTE] congratulations you now realize that you are not able to contribute on the single issue at hand: ethics define law. when they clearly dont, the law is unjust. you have to be playing the fool because this is incredible
[QUOTE=scout1;40295762]Oh so you're arguing ethics. You can stop responding to my posts then, thanks. I thought I made it idiot-proof clear that I wasn't, but you managed to screw that one up too, eh? Ain't that just impolite... [editline]15th April 2013[/editline] That there is no basis for its illegality? I did. Perhaps I did not explain the concept fully, but I was then responded to by killuah trying to cite an international organization as a US law-making body. Which I was able to disprove immediately.[/QUOTE] do you even read your own posts guy [QUOTE=scout1;40293319]Eating isn't illegal if you change the definition of eating to suit your needs. Force feeding isn't illegal. Get over it and stop pretending it's some loophole abuse.[/QUOTE] you just shoved some facts our way and told us to get over the infallibility of law (using semantics, no doubt the most powerful rhetoric there is) [QUOTE=scout1;40295391]Because that's a decent argument no one has made up to this point. Of course through various and actual legal loopholes the prison has been deemed legal. Such as classifying prisoners of war as things... not prisoners of war.[/QUOTE] and then you turn around and do this? you didn't explain anything - all you did was just regurgitate some facts that everyone already knew. You didn't even derive your own conclusion from them.
So scout1 adheres ardently to the law. Meanwhile, everyone else is talking about how shoving a tube up someone's throat and then pumping gruel into their stomach is unethical. But it's not written down in a law book. So it's okay. No, you ignorant bastard, it's not okay. Put yourself into their position - you're locked up in a facility in Cuba, and they strap you down and force a tube up your throat and then start pumping food into you. Would you be okay with that? Would you be okay seeing that happen to a family member? Would you be okay with that happening to ANYONE? It's disgusting behavior. Legality doesn't matter. If legality was all that mattered, you could be stoned to death in Saudi Arabia for being gay and it would be A-OK because the law of the land is supreme to all. You'd just sit there and take it. No, that's fucking ridiculous, there are some things that are universally considered barbaric and force-feeding is way up there. It's not a matter of law, it's a matter of human decency and ethics. You can't simplify this stuff into law. Again, if this was okay to you, we could drop you into a discussion in the Middle East and have you arguing in favor of homosexuality. You'd be executed. The end. BUT it's the law for them to do that so it's perfectly acceptable. You are unbelievable. Law is secondary to ethics.
[QUOTE=Juniez;40295832]do you even read your own posts guy you just shoved some facts our way and told us to get over the infallibility of law [/QUOTE] No basis was made for its illegality. At no point did someone say "Hey this is why it's illegal". Should I have when I responded? Yes. Did I? No. But obviously, as you are saying, you can't just go "it's illegal" "no it's not". I explained why things aren't all illegal just because they can be twisted to seem illegal, as a counter argument... [QUOTE=Juniez;40295832] and then you turn around and do this? you didn't explain anything[/QUOTE] See I'm assuming that anybody who's talking about the law has an idea of what law is. Obviously I am mistaken, because I need to spell everything out instead of just referencing it. [url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZS.html[/url] [editline]15th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=.Isak.;40295876]So scout1 adheres ardently to the law. [/QUOTE] I do plenty of illegal things. Don't tell my employer, please. The federal government takes a dim view. [QUOTE=.Isak.;40295876] Meanwhile, everyone else is talking about how shoving a tube up someone's throat and then pumping gruel into their stomach is unethical. But it's not written down in a law book. So it's okay. [/QUOTE] Has anybody in this thread ever said it was okay? [QUOTE=.Isak.;40295876] No, you ignorant bastard, it's not okay. Put yourself into their position - you're locked up in a facility in Cuba, and they strap you down and force a tube up your throat and then start pumping food into you. Would you be okay with that? Would you be okay seeing that happen to a family member? Would you be okay with that happening to ANYONE? It's disgusting behavior.[/QUOTE] Okay. [QUOTE=.Isak.;40295876]Legality doesn't matter.[/QUOTE] Sure does if you plan to stop it. [QUOTE=.Isak.;40295876] you could be stoned to death in Saudi Arabia for being gay and it would be A-OK because the law of the land is supreme to all.[/QUOTE] Yeah, you could. Pretty good argument for revoking those laws. Although I'm pretty sure the topic is about Guantanamo, not Saudia Arabia. [QUOTE=.Isak.;40295876]You'd just sit there and take it. No, that's fucking ridiculous, there are some things that are universally considered barbaric and force-feeding is way up there.[/QUOTE] ...has anybody in this thread ever said it was okay? x2 [QUOTE=.Isak.;40295876] Again, if this was okay to you, we could drop you into a discussion in the Middle East and have you arguing in favor of homosexuality. You'd be executed. The end. BUT it's the law for them to do that so it's perfectly acceptable. You are unbelievable. Law is secondary to ethics.[/QUOTE] Ethics is secondary to law when you want to determine whether or not someone can strap you into a chair and force feed ya. It might be the rightest thing in the world or the wrongest, but good luck taking on the government if you're on the other side of the law.
[QUOTE=scout1;40295958]No basis was made for its illegality. At no point did someone say "Hey this is why it's illegal". Should I have when I responded? Yes. Did I? No. But obviously, as you are saying, you can't just go "it's illegal" "no it's not". I explained why things aren't all illegal just because they can be twisted to seem illegal, as a counter argument...[/QUOTE] if you want to change the topic from an ethical to legal precedents, feel free (or actually you can actually have both topics at the same time) just, you know, actually state your viewpoint yeah? [B]what do you think about the current situation at Guantanamo Bay, scout1? should it be allowed to operate under its current conditions? it'd be great if you could give some reasons as to why / why not[/B]
[QUOTE=Juniez;40296025]if you want to change the topic from an ethical to legal precedents, feel free (or actually you can actually have both topics at the same time) just, you know, actually state your viewpoint yeah? [B]what do you think about the current situation at Guantanamo Bay, scout1?[/B][/QUOTE] I think that legally, gitmo is cleared on any charges related to force feeding unless they used excessive force or something.
[QUOTE=scout1;40296050]I think that legally, gitmo is cleared on any charges related to force feeding unless they used excessive force or something.[/QUOTE] notice how i didn't use would, i used [I]should[/I] i'm bringing your own opinion and stance into it. because that is where discussion arises - not in seeing how many facts people can throw at one another (facts are fine and all, but you have to do something with them other than "here are some facts") (yes we know it's actually legal. that is a fact)
[QUOTE=Juniez;40296079]notice how i didn't use would, i used [I]should[/I] i'm bringing your own opinion and stance into it. because that is where discussion arises - not in seeing how many facts people can throw at one another (facts are fine and all, but you have to do something with them other than "here are some facts") (yes we know it's actually legal. that is a fact)[/QUOTE] You edited it. I have stated that I'm not going to be posting on the ethical issue. I'm glad we could agree on the legality, though. I think that closes out all the discussion I wanted to see in the thread so... I mean, I've subbed to the thread but I doubt I'll be posting unless someone else raises discussion on it.
oh ok then still though, the question was "what do you think about the situation?", not "what is the situation?"
[QUOTE=scout1;40293667]So PETA could be renamed the "World Animal Association." It doesn't make [B]a lick of fucking difference.[/B] They have no authority. There is no binding rule or regulation. They just said "Hey, this isn't cool." That is not a law. That is not even close to a law. And don't you strawman me on ethics when I tell you a law doesn't exist and you jump all over pretending it does so you can take a shot at something you don't like. [editline]15th April 2013[/editline] Show me where I said that.[/QUOTE] Just like the UN or the Geneva Convention has no relevance in the modern world, since their laws technically cannot be enforced, and human rights is actually comparable peta trying to make a law, right??
[QUOTE=scout1;40296050]I think that legally, gitmo is cleared on any charges related to force feeding unless they used excessive force or something.[/QUOTE] What about the rest of it? Should they be allowed to hold people without trial or charge when the law of their country specifically tells them they may not? Should they be allowed to torture their prisoners who are being illegally detained, when torture is illegal in and of itself? Should it constantly be brushed off as "necessary" or "preventing terrorism" when even a casual glance will tell you it is the opposite? EDIT: It appears I'm late and that you agree Gitmo is illegal, so I'd like to pose a new question. Do you think it's okay if this illegal institution does things that may not be strictly illegal, but are definitely morally wrong?
[QUOTE=Milkdairy;40296118]Just like the UN or the Geneva Convention has no relevance in the modern world, since their laws technically cannot be enforced, and human rights is actually comparable peta trying to make a law, right??[/QUOTE] The UN declarations and Geneva conventions are treaties that [B]states agree to be bound by.[/B] The World Medical Organization is not a collection of states or officials. It is a bunch of doctors who talk about what's right and not right to do. It has no authority to enforce laws. Compare to the UN where laws may be enforced unilaterally by states adhering to declarations or by member action such as "peacekeeping forces". [editline]15th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;40296129]Do you think it's okay if this illegal institution does things that may not be strictly illegal, but are definitely morally wrong?[/QUOTE] I think that I'm still not going to comment on that issue in this thread and would appreciate if people'd stop asking, thanks.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.